RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I have seen quite a bit of conversation in this forum in which the question of proof arises. Much of the time however, there is a lack of understanding of when it is appropriate to ask for proof, who has the burden of proof, if the issue can be proved and what passes for proof.
There is a standard of academia and the sciences when it comes to the burden of proof. Typically, the one presenting an opinion that is contrary to the current belief has the burden of proof. For example, it is generally accepted that smoking causes cancer and a host of other health problems. If one were to suggest that this is all incorrect, the burden of proof would be on that person. It would be fallacious for the person with the unconventional view to demand that a person produce proof that smoking does cause such problems because this has already been established as the prevailing point of view.
When proof is called for, there are also standards of what constitutes proof and how valid that proof is. Scientific method is perhaps the most frequently referred to standard. Karl Popper was a philosopher who contributed a great deal of useful info on this subject, particularly in the area of empirical falsification. With regard to scientific proof, the most important aspect is the publishing of ones findings in a respected peer review journal. It is here that other experts will have a chance to scrutinize not only the findings but the methods and data used to arrive at those findings. Many studies are published only to find that their work rejected by their peers. It should also be noted that one must reference the actual source journal to know if the research passed peer review or not. Just because it was published, doesnt automatically make it valid.
The nature of proof also varies dramatically depending on what is being discussed. If we look at the smoking example, proof is highly concrete as there is an undeniable correlation between smoking and lung cancer. However, when we look at social or political issues even the best proof becomes much weaker by its nature. When we get into issues that are primarily philosophical in nature such as religion it is no longer even reasonable to discuss proof regardless of how true something may be. Consider the following exchange:
Do you love your Mother? Yes.
Prove it.
In general, the more abstract an issue becomes, the less we can depend on empirical evidence and the more we have to rely on wisdom.
It is also worth mentioning that not all proof is created equal. Karl Marx was a proponent of the notion that what is right is often determined by whether or not the ends justify the means. This philosophy has been adopted by the Left and there are tomes of studies that are intentionally contrived in order to sway public opinion. The rationalization for this lack of ethical standards is that the ends justify the means. Many of these studies when actually analyzed reveal this fact. Hence, the old phrase, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
When an issue is being discussed and there is no proof either way, it is common to hear someone make the argument that if there is no proof of a persons claim, the claim must be false. This is a fallacy called argument ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. You can read about the burden of proof and appeal to ignorance here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Or you can see it in this example:
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
In general, it doesnt make sense for a person to prove a negative as is demonstrated above.
Well, that is about all I can think of with regard to proof. If I think of something else I will do a follow up.
There is a standard of academia and the sciences when it comes to the burden of proof. Typically, the one presenting an opinion that is contrary to the current belief has the burden of proof. For example, it is generally accepted that smoking causes cancer and a host of other health problems. If one were to suggest that this is all incorrect, the burden of proof would be on that person. It would be fallacious for the person with the unconventional view to demand that a person produce proof that smoking does cause such problems because this has already been established as the prevailing point of view.
When proof is called for, there are also standards of what constitutes proof and how valid that proof is. Scientific method is perhaps the most frequently referred to standard. Karl Popper was a philosopher who contributed a great deal of useful info on this subject, particularly in the area of empirical falsification. With regard to scientific proof, the most important aspect is the publishing of ones findings in a respected peer review journal. It is here that other experts will have a chance to scrutinize not only the findings but the methods and data used to arrive at those findings. Many studies are published only to find that their work rejected by their peers. It should also be noted that one must reference the actual source journal to know if the research passed peer review or not. Just because it was published, doesnt automatically make it valid.
The nature of proof also varies dramatically depending on what is being discussed. If we look at the smoking example, proof is highly concrete as there is an undeniable correlation between smoking and lung cancer. However, when we look at social or political issues even the best proof becomes much weaker by its nature. When we get into issues that are primarily philosophical in nature such as religion it is no longer even reasonable to discuss proof regardless of how true something may be. Consider the following exchange:
Do you love your Mother? Yes.
Prove it.
In general, the more abstract an issue becomes, the less we can depend on empirical evidence and the more we have to rely on wisdom.
It is also worth mentioning that not all proof is created equal. Karl Marx was a proponent of the notion that what is right is often determined by whether or not the ends justify the means. This philosophy has been adopted by the Left and there are tomes of studies that are intentionally contrived in order to sway public opinion. The rationalization for this lack of ethical standards is that the ends justify the means. Many of these studies when actually analyzed reveal this fact. Hence, the old phrase, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
When an issue is being discussed and there is no proof either way, it is common to hear someone make the argument that if there is no proof of a persons claim, the claim must be false. This is a fallacy called argument ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. You can read about the burden of proof and appeal to ignorance here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Or you can see it in this example:
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
In general, it doesnt make sense for a person to prove a negative as is demonstrated above.
Well, that is about all I can think of with regard to proof. If I think of something else I will do a follow up.
